You can drink your lone star kool aid all you want, and get drunk and hung over on it far as I'm concerned, because you are too stubborn to see that BUSH HIMSELF IS ONE OF THE MAIN FAUX CONSERVATIVES WHO NEVER UTTERED A DAMNED EFFEN PEEP ABOUT REID AND PELOSI.......
History is pretty clear.
Putting the alternatives in ALL CAPS WILL NOT CHANGE IT.
In the fall of 2006, faux conservatives, taught Bush a lesson by staying home for the congressional elections.
Democrats were overwhelmingly elected to the House and Senate.
Immigration reform did NOT pass. Remember— it did not pass— as it did under the glorious reign of Ronaldus Maximus Reagan.
However, ignoring previous warnings from President Bush [roughly ten such warnings] the democrats denoted the mortgage industry as without risk. Barney Frank essentially deregulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac creating an explosive housing bubble. Fiscal restraint ended in January of 2007.
Insert constitutional clue here: The Constitution charges the Congress with role of regulating the government’s purse strings.
Bush’s leadership on fiscal matters lead the nation to declining deficits that dropped as low as $156 billion dollars. They dropped from a peak of half a trillion dollars. Bush leadership had reasonable prospects of reducing the deficit to zero within 2-3 years.
Bush’s spending compromises on stopping economic hemorrhaging contained the following conservative constraints:
1. Bush spent less than half of the congressionally authorized $800 billion in TARP.
2. Bush required the authorized funds to be paid back to taxpayers— which they were.
3. Bush required the authorized funds to be paid back to taxpayers with interest. The bank loans were and a large portion of the car loans have been paid back.
Once Obama and the Democrats gained complete control in January 2009, those aspects of legislative adoption ended. Democrats refuse to even pass budgets anymore. Democrats do not require spending to be paid back. They do not require interest on payback. The annual deficit is ten times larger than what it was when Democrats came to power.
Pretending that American politics is a debate club rather misses the point of policy making. Bush argued with democrats and won as indicated by these differences in policy we can now plainly see. The democrats do not want any spending limits. Do you really still need persuading on that point?
Saying Bush should be harsher or someone else would be more effective is plainly ridiculous. That is not what happened. Electing Republicans in 2010 has proven significantly helpful but failing to elect republican senators in 2012 was a real problem.
One can literally lay out the deficit grid based on Republican control of Congress and it is clear.
Do you really think Clinton reduced the deficits rather than the republicans in Congress.
Bush defended conservative policies and won— far more than Reagan did.
Good post..
I get a kick out of the lonestar Bush fan club folks suggesting Bush was a winner and great leader, while Reagan never achieved the level of success and leadership Bush did....Or whatever the hell they allege.
Reagan’s horse had more class than the entire Bush family.